I have the 500mm II and the majority of the time I use it hand held on a FF. Besides 500mm being my preferred focal length, the weight was one of the reasons I chose the lens over the 400mm and 600mm II's (it's not a massive difference, but it is noticable). I walk with the 500mm on a BR strap for several hours without issue. I've never been a big tripod user...although a good tripod/monopod does help to stabalize this lens for those times when you are more stationary. Oh yes the IS is remarkable...I've shot stationary subjects at 1/20th with great results. I still use my 300mm f/4 IS with a 50D for those times I want less weight (and less attention) the 500mm will certainly get you some looks.

K-amps, I too owned a Krell KAV-250a. I enjoyed it a lot. Bought it used in 1999, sold it in 2003. I still enjoy music and audio (and even home theater), but don't spend much money at all anymore. If I ever get rich again, I will.

K-amps, I too owned a Krell KAV-250a. I enjoyed it a lot. Bought it used in 1999, sold it in 2003. I still enjoy music and audio (and even home theater), but don't spend much money at all anymore. If I ever get rich again, I will.

Got mine 1997... still have it... love it It now drives the tweeters and mids in my HT.

K-amps, that is sweet. My home theater is in a state of change, I sold my projector...and at this point buying a camera makes more sense than a new projector...unless I can get my brother to chip in.

I bought and sold loads of exotic speaker cable and interconnects, and ac power cords...rented a lot from fatwyre as well. It was all very fun stuff. I don't know if even photography is as rewarding as listening to great music on a great system...but listening isn't creating anything, or being productive. It's leisure. I find myself absorbed with one thing at a time, then the time is gone...haha.

I take 1000s of bird photos and look at even more, where I always note the lenses used. There is no doubt that the guys with the 500s and 600s and the 1.4xTCs produce the sharpest, and get a quality that is beyond mine. So, I constantly worry that perhaps I should join them. But look at the cost, as aside from the cash. I see them sitting in hides all day long with their Glitzos front legs splayed out on the shelves and sitting immobile. That's not for me. I use a 300mm f/2.8 II with the 1.4 and 2xTCs. I can walk for miles with it in my hand, don't need a tripod and get very high quality shots. Also, because it is swinging from my hand, I have more impromptu opportunities. So, I keep persuading myself not to buy a 500mm.

Now for the other lenses mentioned, two of which I have considerable first hand experience. The 400mm f/5.6 is not often used nowadays. It is not tack sharp and lacks IS. I was never happy with its quality. The 100-400mm is a very popular lens, and rightly so. It has similar sharpness at the centre to the 400mm f/5.6, and has all the advantages of IS (and it is a good 2+ of stops) and zoom, which is useful. Again, even though I use it as a travel lens, the sharpness limits is usefulness to larger targets. The 400mm f/4 I have seen used only once. It has a bad reputation for lack of contrast and the tests on The-Digital-Picture.com (as well as Canon's published mtfs) confirm its poor image quality.

So, I'll continue to look for a cheap used 500mm, but hope I won't find one.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but I rented a 500 f/4 (version 1), and it wasn't as sharp as the 400 f/5.6 that I rented a year later. Obviously, the longer reach would factor in. The 500 had more contrast and color. I think something was off about it, but it was tested and supposedly nothing was wrong.

Alan, I do agree that a shorter faster lens is more practical. It's what I am working towards eventually buying, I have tried one in the past...about to try another...probably the 300 f/2.8 version 1.

My cousin owns the 600 f/4 version 1. It is spectacular, as I'm sure you know.

Here is a crop at 100% I recently posted in another thread, taken via the 400 f/5.6, and my crop camera. Whether this is "tack sharp" or not, is subjective. I have others that might illustrate it better, but I haven't gone through them all. The subject itself doesn't really lend to tack sharpness...and I realize compositionally it's not remotely a good picture.

Here is a crop at 100% I recently posted in another thread, taken via the 400 f/5.6, and my crop camera. Whether this is "tack sharp" or not, is subjective. I have others that might illustrate it better, but I haven't gone through them all. The subject itself doesn't really lend to tack sharpness...and I realize compositionally it's not remotely a good picture.

If reach is this critical to you, I strongly suggest you pick up a 7D or wait for the 7DIIA 300 f2.8 IS FoV on APS-C = 480mm

It'd be $$$ smart + leagues more portable.My ¢¢

Thanks for the input, but i don't believe in crop factor reach advantage. Furthermore the 300 f2.8 isn't cheap either and the money one loses on a semi-pro body is in the long run about in the same league than on a supertele.

Would the new EF 200-400 IS (forthcoming) be something for you? It has a built-in 1.4x converter, so you can have a 560mm lens if you wish. Don't know about the price.You make some very good pics, why not try to sell some? At least you could earn some money back. I am curious about your cycling. Austria is a mountaineous country, do you avoid high places altogether or do you have 24+ gears or what? I could not imagine myself cycling in Austria but then I am from Holland which is a flat as a pancake (and ideal for cycling in my opinion).Kind regards,

Rob.

Hi Rob,

well i don't really see the advantage compared to the 500. My major concerns - size and weight - will be about the same (or maybe more?) and price will also be higher i suppose. As already said I don't need a zoom - i need reach. 500 seems to be the better option for me in all categories.

I don't know about selling pics. Who would like to buy those? Also, I like to photograph - I'm not a marketing guy...

About the cycling: In the part of Austria that i live now it's rather flat so cycling is a relatively fast and convenient method of transportation (especially within the city). Otherwise you are right - I'm originally from the province Tirol where this is a complete different thing...

I have the 500mm II and the majority of the time I use it hand held on a FF. Besides 500mm being my preferred focal length, the weight was one of the reasons I chose the lens over the 400mm and 600mm II's (it's not a massive difference, but it is noticable). I walk with the 500mm on a BR strap for several hours without issue. I've never been a big tripod user...although a good tripod/monopod does help to stabalize this lens for those times when you are more stationary. Oh yes the IS is remarkable...I've shot stationary subjects at 1/20th with great results. I still use my 300mm f/4 IS with a 50D for those times I want less weight (and less attention) the 500mm will certainly get you some looks.

Thank god I'm not the only one considering to use this handheld. Good to hear that it's possible. You wouldn't coincidentally have some pictures to share would you?

LOL! Well, you guessed wrong! And the funniest thing is: My girlfriend totally approves this lens. If it was for her I would already have it - she even offered to pay for it! I know I'm a lucky sob...

lol...thats awesome! get it, it might turn her on.

my wife still insists that the first time she saw me shoot with my hasselblad she thought it was sexy. cant say i blame her but it surprised me a non photo person would think of it in such a way.

she still says i shouldn't sell it every time i have thoughts of cashing it out.

I have never thought about that effect. I'll definitely consider this when making my decision...

-----------------------------------------

Meanwhile I found out that a local photo-dealer has a Sigma 500mm 4,5 on display. That lens is only a few cm smaller than the Canon and has nearly the same weight. I'll pay him a visit this week and will try to find out if the weight would work for me. If it does, the probability that I buy the Canon is quite high.I'll of course post some images in case I really get it.

The Sigma 500 has a problematic aperture for autofocus. f/4.5 means that a 1.4xextender gives an aperture greater than f/5.6 so in order to use it you will need a 1D or have to wait until after April for the 5D III to have a firmware update to go up to f/8 for AF. The extender won't give AF on other models. A 2xextender will give f/9, which will not autofocus on any Canon.

Cervantes, how could you not believe in crop factor reach advantage??? The only reason to not use it, is in low light...which...well...I agree is more fun. More wildlife comes out, the light is more interesting, etc.

Alan, here's a scaled down version of the un-cropped original (to save server space)...However I could post the full size one too if it looks like I'm being dishonest or something. The original size is 15.1 MP, 4752 x 3168. Hope you can tell this is the actual picture. I don't have anything on flickr or anywhere right now. I could even send you the raw file if you like, I suppose. To me it looks like other sites would be better than flickr, because they make it harder to steal the picture. I haven't really decided which to use. I need my own website at some point. The only public place I have put some of my (small) pics is on facebook, and hardly anybody looks at them on there, haha. Not that this particular shot is worthy of being stolen...hahaa.

The Sigma 500 has a problematic aperture for autofocus. f/4.5 means that a 1.4xextender gives an aperture greater than f/5.6 so in order to use it you will need a 1D or have to wait until after April for the 5D III to have a firmware update to go up to f/8 for AF. The extender won't give AF on other models. A 2xextender will give f/9, which will not autofocus on any Canon.

Thanks, but I'm not considering the Sigma (I can see now my statement from yesterday was quite misleading - Sorry). I was only trying out the weight of the Sigma (since it is the same as the Canon) at the shop yesterday. Didn't feel so bad and wasn't as heavy as expected after all! After trying I can really imagine to use it handheld.

Cervantes, how could you not believe in crop factor reach advantage??? The only reason to not use it, is in low light...which...well...I agree is more fun. More wildlife comes out, the light is more interesting, etc.

I had APSC (550D) and I have FF (5D3) and I can assure you that the former hasn't any advantage regarding resolving power than the latter, regardless of ISO. Actually it's the other way round. An APSC-sized crop of the 5D3 shows at least the same level of detail then an uncropped 550D image, despite having vastly less MP (8.6 vs 18MP). I have done lots and lots of macro shots with both cameras and before i got the 5D3 I was concerned about losing max. magnification - that didn't happen.

Cervantes, I don't doubt you get great image resolution with a 5D3. However, if you do some simple math, you will find that something like a 7D resolves detail within its cropped area, equal to that of a 46 MP (or so) full frame...which exceeds that of a D800, let alone a 5D3. My own 15.1 MP crop camera, resolves detail within its cropped 1.6x field, of a 38.5 MP full frame. So, just by the math, and guessing, I'd say mine resolves a similar amount of detail to a D800, and perhaps a bit less than a D800E (not discussing dynamic range, etc.)

The 1D Mark 4, has a pixel size which is equal to approximately 25MP on a full frame, within its 1.3x crop area.

So there is more detail there for a 1.6x...gobs of it (provided the ISO is reasonably low of course).

In a recent review, I saw where the detail falls off sharply on the 6D above ISO 6400, where it doesn't fall off until above ISO 12,800 for the 5D3. Interesting.

The ~24MP 1.6x crop sensors of the future, will resolve so much detail that I highly doubt anyone will ever be able to produce files with a 100% crop, where the lens will resolve as much as the pixels will resolve. I've seen a similar problem with the full size images from the Sigma SD1, which can theoretically resolve anywhere from 30 to 40 MP, via its 1.5x crop sensor. That's a full frame equivalent of well over 100 MP.

There are other factors at play, and I suggest your experience with a 550D, is at least in part due to a lack of AFMA...if not a very wimpy autofocus sensor...or both. The processing comes into play also.

That's the problem with going from a Rebel to a 5D3. You missed out on the best part of the crop camera experience!

If you're arguing about switching to a longer lens for a similar field of view on full frame, then that's apples and oranges...but yes, a longer lens on a full frame camera with larger pixels, will mean the lens itself need not be as sharp, as a shorter lens needs to be, in order to make use of a crop camera's smaller pixels...to produce a similar amount of detail for a similar subject size, over the same pixel area of the competing files.

However, there is a law of diminishing returns. The rare, expensive, and old Canon 1200mm lens on a 5D3, will probably not resolve what the newer, less expensive, 800 f/5.6 will do, mounted to a 7D. I could be wrong, but certainly from what I have seen online, the 1200mm isn't all that sharp at all (even manually focused on a stationary target, which was Manhattan in the shot I'm remembering, I think.)

So that gets back to my point. If you need a long telephoto in low light, then the best choice would always be a full frame, or otherwise whatever has the lowest noise sensor and the best autofocus (and likely it would have the larger area for each photosite, diode, or pixel...and the larger autofocus sensor). If you need a long telephoto for shooting unusually fast or agile targets...you probably need to couple it to a 1Dx. If they aren't moving very fast, you can probably get by with a 7D on an even shorter lens. I'm not stating anything new there, I don't think.